tfrizz wrote:Just finished watching Hockey Central at Noon, and Kypreos & MacLean provided good insight into what the issues are. Basically, the league is trying to get back the freedoms the players got in the last CBA (UFA age, etc) but the players aren't fighting for today. They feel that if they give in now, then when this CBA is up in 5 years the NHL will come at them with 45-47%, a higher (again) UFA age, and even fewer contractual freedoms.

They made a point in saying the NHL is absolutely nuts for trying to put in the 5% escalator, where a player's contract can't increase or decrease by 5% from year to year. As MacLean put it "they're going to give them the money, so what right do they have to limit how it's allocated".

I figured a former player like Kypreos would be on their side, but for MacLean to put so much fault on the NHL was really surprising. Neither absolved the NHLPA of blame, but simply placed more on the NHL side of things.

If players are so paranoid that they're worried about owners taking even more 5 years from now, then forget about it. Not even worth discussing. This is now and leave the future to 5 years from now, but I doubt owners would want to be so blatant in trying to rip them off then. Current numbers are off, teams are losing money, but if they get a good deal for both sides now, there may not be big changes next time.

I don't know what the proper % in variance should be, but I think it's a good idea to have something like that. Some of those crazy deals are structured so the player, close or at his retirement age, is to make very little and it's obvious that is pure cap circumvention that should be eliminated.

wow, full of typos today.

The % should be eliminated it shoulg be the same for every year of the contract should be paid by the average cap hit. A 5 year 25 million deal should be paid 5-5-5-5-5 during the life fo the deal. How is that not fair to the club or the player?

You know it was a player agent working with a GM to do the first cap circumvention deal.

Has any major sport had this many lockouts? Does the NHL realize that not many people actually care that they are not playing? This is not the NFL. I love hockey but this is ridiculous, this league sucks and if they do eventually sign a 5 year deal. Look for another lockout in 5.

Mr. Colby wrote:The 5% variance clause I think is an important thing on which the owners need to be unwilling to budge. All that does is close the cap loophole from the prior CBA. We can't have people cheating the system by making 500,000 for years 12-14 of the deal that will never even be played due to retirement.

On the players side of things, there's no reason to have a 5-year term limit. That is simply redundant. The 5% variance takes care of the loophole, and players do deserve long-term security if they want it.

I understand the need to prevent front-loading contracts the way they currently do, but there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to back-load. Maybe the 5% escalator should only be applied to lowering salaries instead of all changes.

Mr. Colby wrote:I just don't buy in to hockey fans saying their interest in hockey is deteriorating. It isn't, it's just moving to the back burner and it will be back when hockey's back.

I couldn't agree more which is why I've not said once that I am done. I have no backbone and I know it. I'm just ticked at the NHL for taking advantage of my wimpiness.

You can still love and watch the game...just do it while boycotting any business the NHL is partnered with. Bridgestone is the headline sponsor for the winter classic. Don't buy them...and let it be known that you won't buy them.

I guess everyone has their own views...I'm not interested in being another one of the cattle on the ranch waiting for my wallet to be slaughtered.

That doesn't even make a little sense.

The players and the owners are fighting, let's blame Bridgestone!

Yeah that was a head scratcher for me. Personally, if I thought the sponsors deserved to pay some price, which I don't, the biggest one is their advertising not currently being seen on dasher boards or in game commercials.

MarioLives wrote:Has any major sport had this many lockouts? Does the NHL realize that not many people actually care that they are not playing? This is not the NFL. I love hockey but this is ridiculous, this league sucks and if they do eventually sign a 5 year deal. Look for another lockout in 5.

Not that many people cared about the NBA lockout either to be honest. I mean the hardcore fans did but that's about it.

The Brothers Fehr really need to put a gag order out on the players. One by one they open their mouths to remove all doubt that they are ignorant, delusional sheep. It irks me how people with such microscopic autonomy of thought and powers of discernment could make such money, but I guess them's the breaks.

Oh, and Sidney, if you're looking for equivalence, you're at the wrong negotiation table. Don't join the herd.

I mean, wouldn't that "/ownerlogic" hurt the players more? They get more money up-front currently, you have no idea what the future holds in terms of how the league goes, how their career goes, how contracts are depreciating assets vs. inflation, etc. Teams won't put up $10 and $12 million salaries if it means the cap hit is $10 and $12 million...players have to wait longer to be paid. That's why people have the option to take X amount of money upfront when they win the lottery or take it in annual payments. There's a large portion of people that pick the former.

No scheduled talks, looks pretty bad. Anyone think Sid will look at this and decide to go to Europoe and at least get to play some competitive hockey? Sid always likes to get better at some part of his game but is accomplishing nothing with this crap. All he is doing is losing a healthy season. I say he goes once December games are cancelled.

I fear there will be no hockey this season both sides are so trenched in and are unwilling to budge. I can't believe Fehr got the players so united and ready to sacrafice a year of wages to get a good deal. Which i don't see them getting even if a whole year goes by. I knew when Fehr was hired this thing was going to get ugly. These battles are what Fehr enjoys, he really has no regards for the players or the sport of hockey.

Bettmani i figured all along was willing to give up a season to get the deal he wanted.

SO what happened on those last 5 days of long negotiations??? Was it even negotiations, or was it i want this and this is why. Do one or the other make counter offers. Did anything positive come out of the meetings.

Sid will have a hard time playing some where, something about the extra insurance he would have to pay would be to big.

Great point no name. I've never seen so little come out of so much time together. Steve Fehr saying that the 3 issues they are disagreeing on are the exact issues that started this whole thing, you think, what were you doing in the room, looking at pictures of your families on your laptops? I get more done in 2 hour meetings with clients than they've gotten done this year.

You can't help but go to the conclusion of things. The owners can wait forever. If as many teams were losing money like they said they were, then why ever play again? No other league could ever pay these players what they make in the NHL even under a repressive new agreement and they know it. the players literally have no bargaining power at all. they make way too much for what the sport returns. They are going to lose, and the figure will crush the amount that they lost during the last lockout. There is no precedent for the volume of losses that are about to happen. Put your tail between your legs and take your beat down like a man.

Mr. Colby wrote:Or why don't they just completely forget about Average Annual Value and just have Cap Hit = Actual Salary?

I'm not sure what is stopping them from doing this.

Because it's easier for owners to justify paying a guy with a cap hit of $5 mil/yr $12 mil when he's 25 and $2 mil when he's 35 as opposed to $5 mil when he's 25 and 35?

/ownerlogic

Doesn't answer my question.

I know this.

They're trying to stop this from happening. So instead of this "5%" thing, just count your yearly salary as your yearly cap hit. It's simple.

The owners aren't frontloading contracts because they want to pay the players more up front. They didn't become billionaires by not holding onto their money as long as possible. (there's a reason banks will pay you interest to let them 'hold on' to your savings). They are frontloading because it's attractive to the player, and helps them land said player. The player can now invest that money and hopefully have it be worth even more before the end of the contract. That having been said-- the owners are only doing it because it doesn't effect the cap hit. If you tell them 'go ahead and frontload, but the cash paid in each season is the cap hit for that year' then they would cease doing it altogether (i suspect), which would actually hurt the players bargaining power. The 5% thing allows for some variation in actual pay, without effecting the cap hit. Maybe a slightly higher percentage would be agreeable to all parties?

Mr. Colby wrote:Or why don't they just completely forget about Average Annual Value and just have Cap Hit = Actual Salary?

I'm not sure what is stopping them from doing this.

Because it's easier for owners to justify paying a guy with a cap hit of $5 mil/yr $12 mil when he's 25 and $2 mil when he's 35 as opposed to $5 mil when he's 25 and 35?

/ownerlogic

Doesn't answer my question.

I know this.

They're trying to stop this from happening. So instead of this "5%" thing, just count your yearly salary as your yearly cap hit. It's simple.

The owners aren't frontloading contracts because they want to pay the players more up front. They didn't become billionaires by not holding onto their money as long as possible. (there's a reason banks will pay you interest to let them 'hold on' to your savings). They are frontloading because it's attractive to the player, and helps them land said player. The player can now invest that money and hopefully have it be worth even more before the end of the contract. That having been said-- the owners are only doing it because it doesn't effect the cap hit. If you tell them 'go ahead and frontload, but the cash paid in each season is the cap hit for that year' then they would cease doing it altogether (i suspect), which would actually hurt the players bargaining power. The 5% thing allows for some variation in actual pay, without effecting the cap hit. Maybe a slightly higher percentage would be agreeable to all parties?

They also front-load because...

It cost them less to buy out a contract in the latter years; and,

It makes a player more tradeable as his salary lowers, even if the cap hit comes into play.

But lets say a player signs a 5-year front loaded contract where he's paid 8 million in year one:

1- 8.02- 7.63- 7.224- 6.865- 6.52

AAV = 7.24

Really AAV doesn't do much of anything in this situation - your cap hit is 750k lower in year 1 but then 750k higher in year 5. I guess the best use of AAV is that it provides cap relief in year 1, and owners can say year 5 increase won't matter because the cap will go up by then.

Either way I think AAV does nothing but over-complicate things and take away from the integrity of a salary cap.

It makes a player more tradeable as his salary lowers, even if the cap hit comes into play.

Maybe, but A. what's the advantage of buying out a contract for 'less' if you've already overpaid by an equal amount in prior years? B. Does it really make sense to overpay a player for a few years so that you can trade him right when he becomes a steal?

It seems to me these things only make sense in the extreme cases, where the contract clearly extends well beyond the player's reasonable career. Putting a max. on the length of contracts would effectively eliminate that practice.

Daly:“Maybe you can explain to me how close we are when the union’s last offer requested a ‘guarantee’ of players’ share dollars in excess of $1.9 billion — and a guarantee going up in subsequent years — and we are offering 50% of HRR this year in an environment where we estimate damage to the business of at least $400 million — to this point?"

“Their latest offer would have players making 65% of HRR for this year. It’s a funny definition of being ‘close’.”